§ MR. WARRENsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Count Walewski having stated, in the second paragraph of his despatch to the British Government of the 20th day of January, 1858, that
It was in England that Pianori formed the plan of striking the Emperor; it was from London that in an affair the recollection of which is still recent, Mazzini, Ledru Rollin, and Campanella directed the assassins whom they had furnished with arms; it is there, also, that the authors of the last plot have leisurely prepared their means of action, have studied and constructed the instruments of destruction which they have employed, and it is from thence that they set out to carry their plans into execution.And Count Walewski having also stated in the third paragraph of the same despatch, that—The Government of the Emperor of the French is convinced that, with such proofs in their possession of the abuse of hospitality, the English Government and people understand at once to what extent the Government of the Emperor of the French is justified in directing its attention to them—any application has been made by the Go- 1263 vernment of the Emperor of the French to Her Majesty's Government to prosecute the above-mentioned, or any other parties, in respect of such conspiracies; and whether any and what answer was returned; and whether any steps have been taken to ascertain whether any evidence can be obtained to support any such prosecution; and, in particular, whether the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown has been taken on the subject, and whether there is any objection to lay it on the table of this House.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYSir, no direct, or formal request has been made by the French Government at any time for the prosecution of any persons in this country for the crime of conspiracy to commit offences of the nature referred to; but in the course of last year a copy of certain judicial proceedings which were taken at Paris against the parties mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Warren), was Bent to Her Majesty's Government by the Ambassador in Paris. The papers were unaccompanied by any request that proceedings should be taken upon them; but no doubt they were presented in order that the attention of Her Majesty's Government might be called to the facts deposed to by the witnesses, and that they might consider whether the evidence was sufficient to induce them to do that which they bad always said they would be ready to do, if evidence could be adduced on which persons could be placed on trial in this country, namely, to take immediate steps for their apprehension. Those proceedings so transmitted were taken into consideration, and the opinion which the Government arrived at was that there was not sufficient evidence in this country to justify them in arresting those persons and putting them on their trial on the charge of conspiracy to commit murder. That opinion was wholly irrespective of what might be the effect of the evidence taken in France—we had no such evidence here, and that opinion was forwarded to the French Government. With regard to the latter part of the question of my hon. and learned Friend, I consider it would be wrong in me to state what measures we may think it right to take in the event of persons being charged with that crime hereafter; but if we should be in possession of evidence which would justify the apprehension of any persons on a charge of conspiracy we should not hesitate in at once taking measures for bringing them to trial.
§ MR. WARRENsaid, he would beg further to ask whether Her Majesty's Government have evidence in their possession that any natural-born British subject of Her Majesty, or any person owing temporary allegiance to Her Majesty, was accessory before the fact to the murders committed in Paris on the 14th of January; and whether the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown has been taken whether such British subjects are liable to be tried in this country under the statute of the 9th George IV., chap. 31, section 7?
§ SIR GEORGE GREYA warrant has been issued against a person whom I believe to be a British subject in pursuance of the provisions of the 9th George IV., on the charge of being accessory before the fact to a murder alleged to have been committed in France. I should not be justified, however, I think, in giving the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown upon the case.